Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

Two days after my mother’s funeral, I read of the continuing violence in the world and felt the deep sorrow that I felt at my mother’s passing. The sadness is related because, for me, humanity is family, and we are all related. Whether we are close or near, we are siblings, and the pain of one or many should affect us all. The most important science in the world should be that of coexistence.

But there isn't a specific scientific discipline called the "science of coexistence," the concept is explored through various fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science, and ecology, as well as through understanding how individuals and communities coexist involves examining social interactions, cultural dynamics, psychological factors, and environmental influences.

In ecology, coexistence theory refers to studying the mechanisms that allow different species to coexist in the same environment. Concepts such as symbiosis, competition and mutualism provide insights into the mechanisms that enable different organisms to live together in balance. This involves studying factors such as resource partitioning, niche differentiation and competition to understand how different species can share the same ecological space without one species excluding others. Anthropologists study the diversity of human cultures and societies. They explore how different communities have historically coexisted, the development of cultural norms that support cooperation, and the impact of cultural differences on interactions.

A similar theory of coexistence in sociology or political science might refer to ideas or frameworks that explore how individuals or diverse groups can live together peacefully. This might involve the study of concepts such as multiculturalism, tolerance and the role of institutions in promoting social harmony. Sociologists study the patterns of social relations and interactions within societies. This includes examining how different groups live together, the structures that facilitate or hinder this, and the impact of social norms on cooperation.

Psychologists study the behaviour of individuals and groups, including the factors that promote or inhibit cooperation. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind empathy, trust, and conflict resolution is crucial to studying coexistence. Political scientists analyse the structures and processes of governance that facilitate coexistence at local, national and international levels. This includes the study of diplomacy, conflict resolution and the role of institutions in promoting peaceful coexistence. A similar coexistence theory might relate to strategies or principles that promote peaceful interaction between nations in international relations. This could include diplomatic approaches, conflict resolution techniques and global cooperation models.

Is there a spiritual tradition that fundamentally promotes coexistence, or are they all in competition with each other?

[JackDaydream]

The esoteric traditions, in general, are more along the lines of support for coexistence and theosophy is particularly so. It draws upon Western and Eastern ideas, although there may be a blending of Hinduism and Christianity more than a fully integrative approach. However, one of the principles of the Theosophical Society is on the 'truth' underlying all religions. It does also state the importance of science too, and is not necessarily stressing theism in a conventional sense.

Having a leaning towards comparative religion and the academic approach to the study of religion I have found theosophy to be a useful reference point. In addition, there is the idea of the perennial philosophy, especially the ideas of Aldous Huxley. You might find his book on the subject useful to read or, if you have read it already, how do you see Huxley's approach? I see it as being a more distant view of ideas as opposed to the thinking of those who are immersed and committed to a particular system of religious beliefs.

[Lagayascienza]

The monotheistic Abrahamic religions, with which majority of us here are probably most familiar, do seem to be exclusive rather than cooperative. When they are not at war and killing each other, about the only thing they seem to agree on is that atheists and apostates are going to hell and perhaps should be beheaded before they get there. And even within Christianity, protestants and Catholics have been forever at each others throats, while in in Islam, the Sunnis and Shia cannot leave each other in peace. And the Christians and Muslims both have a history of dealing it out to the Jews. Religion. It's crazy.

The eastern religions seem gentler to me, and more willing to find common ground across cultures. They deal in the idea that the human spirit is all one and that unification with the one brings enlightenment, peace and an end to the cycle of suffering. It's a nice idea. If I were going to chose a religion and was looking for one that valued and promoted peace and universality it would probably be Vedanta. Zen would be a close second.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there a spiritual tradition that fundamentally promotes coexistence, or are they all in competition with each other?

Don't some Eastern philosophy/religions come close to this? Taoism guides us in the direction of the Tao, from which only (I think) enbrained creatures can deviate, but they can choose to follow the Tao, the Path, and Taoism recommends that they (we) do. Is that anywhere close to what you're asking?

[Stoppelmann]

The esoteric traditions, in general, are more along the lines of support for coexistence and theosophy is particularly so. It draws upon Western and Eastern ideas, although there may be a blending of Hinduism and Christianity more than a fully integrative approach. However, one of the principles of the Theosophical Society is on the 'truth' underlying all religions. It does also state the importance of science too, and is not necessarily stressing theism in a conventional sense.

Having a leaning towards comparative religion and the academic approach to the study of religion I have found theosophy to be a useful reference point. In addition, there is the idea of the perennial philosophy, especially the ideas of Aldous Huxley. You might find his book on the subject useful to read or, if you have read it already, how do you see Huxley's approach? I see it as being a more distant view of ideas as opposed to the thinking of those who are immersed and committed to a particular system of religious beliefs.

Thanks for your input. I have Huxley's work on my Kindle and should have started reading it quite some time ago, but I have been reading so much, and there is so much to read for a guy like me, who is, as it were, catching up on what he missed in the earlier years of his life. Did you find that nursing occupied your mind so intensely that everything else was marginalised? The disciplines I mentioned in the OP were closer to home, and estranged me from the church, especially from the more conservative strands, which seemed to emphasise the us/them attitude.

Returning to Christianity, I have adopted a critical view of the church's heritage and look at scriptures in the way I did at the beginning, as literature and as a composition intended to provide a narrative for a defeated people. That is also the tenor of a book by Jacob L. Wright, on Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins and confirms what I thought, but couldn't prove, years ago. As such we have to be critical of what it proposes and try to understand the intention of the scribes that put it together. Above all, it is one narrative among many. It may have been unique at its time of conception, but many cultures have narratives, even the Lao Tzu narrative or the Buddha narrative, which are stories of legendary figures, and we have numerous and diverse mythological sources.

What most people point to here is the fact that the East seems to provide more guidance towards coexistence, although we can't ignore the rivalry there, and even the Tao te Ching is a criticism of Confucianism, and Buddhism was a criticism of the practices that in the narrative made Gautama into a skinful of bones, that one could almost see through. Buddhism didn't prevent Japan's imperialistic past, or the conflicts we know about, despite Buddhism being one of the more peaceful teachings. Despite Vedanta emphasising the unity of humanity in Brahman, being Atman and of the same essence, it still couldn't prevent the struggle with opposing forces, when neighbouring kingdoms entered into disputes leading to warfare. However, 600 kingdoms are thought by historians to have been in existence simultaneously at various phases of Indian history and to maintain peace among kingdoms, governance through the principles of dharma helped ensure social stability.

I guess the bottom line is that humanity is aggressive and prone to violence unless it lives by teaching that nips that proclivity in the bud. I tend towards Eastern traditions, but as a Westerner, I am steeped in Western traditions, which are not easy to shake off. My Bible has been reduced to the Sermon on the Mount, which has teachings that even Swamis identify with. The problem will always remain, that civilisations dedicated to coexistence will be prone to attack by those who are not. What worries me is, what if we're the bad guys?

[Sy Borg]

Based on my readings, no major religion deals with coexistence, but certain individual practitioners of all religions promote coexistence. Peacefulness seems to me more a personality trait than a cultural one, although societies are clearly not all equally peaceful.

I would describe many western societies' approaches to coexistence to be chaotic. That is, the drive towards coexistence is somewhat neutralised by the drive for security.

[JackDaydream]

The esoteric traditions, in general, are more along the lines of support for coexistence and theosophy is particularly so. It draws upon Western and Eastern ideas, although there may be a blending of Hinduism and Christianity more than a fully integrative approach. However, one of the principles of the Theosophical Society is on the 'truth' underlying all religions. It does also state the importance of science too, and is not necessarily stressing theism in a conventional sense.

Having a leaning towards comparative religion and the academic approach to the study of religion I have found theosophy to be a useful reference point. In addition, there is the idea of the perennial philosophy, especially the ideas of Aldous Huxley. You might find his book on the subject useful to read or, if you have read it already, how do you see Huxley's approach? I see it as being a more distant view of ideas as opposed to the thinking of those who are immersed and committed to a particular system of religious beliefs.

Thanks for your input. I have Huxley's work on my Kindle and should have started reading it quite some time ago, but I have been reading so much, and there is so much to read for a guy like me, who is, as it were, catching up on what he missed in the earlier years of his life. Did you find that nursing occupied your mind so intensely that everything else was marginalised? The disciplines I mentioned in the OP were closer to home, and estranged me from the church, especially from the more conservative strands, which seemed to emphasise the us/them attitude.

Returning to Christianity, I have adopted a critical view of the church's heritage and look at scriptures in the way I did at the beginning, as literature and as a composition intended to provide a narrative for a defeated people. That is also the tenor of a book by Jacob L. Wright, on Why the Bible Began: An Alternative History of Scripture and its Origins and confirms what I thought, but couldn't prove, years ago. As such we have to be critical of what it proposes and try to understand the intention of the scribes that put it together. Above all, it is one narrative among many. It may have been unique at its time of conception, but many cultures have narratives, even the Lao Tzu narrative or the Buddha narrative, which are stories of legendary figures, and we have numerous and diverse mythological sources.

What most people point to here is the fact that the East seems to provide more guidance towards coexistence, although we can't ignore the rivalry there, and even the Tao te Ching is a criticism of Confucianism, and Buddhism was a criticism of the practices that in the narrative made Gautama into a skinful of bones, that one could almost see through. Buddhism didn't prevent Japan's imperialistic past, or the conflicts we know about, despite Buddhism being one of the more peaceful teachings. Despite Vedanta emphasising the unity of humanity in Brahman, being Atman and of the same essence, it still couldn't prevent the struggle with opposing forces, when neighbouring kingdoms entered into disputes leading to warfare. However, 600 kingdoms are thought by historians to have been in existence simultaneously at various phases of Indian history and to maintain peace among kingdoms, governance through the principles of dharma helped ensure social stability.

I guess the bottom line is that humanity is aggressive and prone to violence unless it lives by teaching that nips that proclivity in the bud. I tend towards Eastern traditions, but as a Westerner, I am steeped in Western traditions, which are not easy to shake off. My Bible has been reduced to the Sermon on the Mount, which has teachings that even Swamis identify with. The problem will always remain, that civilisations dedicated to coexistence will be prone to attack by those who are not. What worries me is, what if we're the bad guys?

Disentangling the issues of Christianity and organised religion was one of the main aspects which has directed my own philosophy quest. Since I was a teenager at school, I find that my reading life has always been central, possibly too much so at times. It as if I am trying to assemble a large jigsaw puzzle of ideas from various traditions and from the various disciplines of thought, which may be an endless quest as reality may be multidimensional.

One book which I came across was, 'The Plural Psyche', by Anthony Samuels, which is about building up a picture from different perspectives. It is similar to the notion of relativism but his one is not based on all ideas being merely relative, but about trying to find 'truth' by exploring what is helpful from different angles. Samuels' background was Jungian psychotherapy and Jung drew upon the collective aspects of religious ideas, East and West.

In thinking about the underlying idea of coexistence and religion, the tension may be about the exoteric and esoteric. It does seem that most spiritual teachers, from Confucius, Jesus and the Buddha, had teachings which involved basic spiritual and ethical ideas of a similar nature as coexistent and parallels. However, when these are levelled down into institutional religion may where trouble enters, which is also connected to the politics of religion. This is extremely complicated because apart from Rome and Christendom there have been groups like the Templars and the Freemasons. The power structures which develop around the ideas of religion may distort the spiritual aspects of various teachings into a way which is so different from the original messages, leading to wars of ideas and literal wars too.

[Stoppelmann]

Based on my readings, no major religion deals with coexistence, but certain individual practitioners of all religions promote coexistence. Peacefulness seems to me more a personality trait than a cultural one, although societies are clearly not all equally peaceful.

I would describe many western societies' approaches to coexistence to be chaotic. That is, the drive towards coexistence is somewhat neutralised by the drive for security.

I agree, although it is often an assumption with regard to "security," which is often a lack of acceptance that some things must go their way. The paranoid attitude towards communism is one of those examples, especially in America, but also in the Near East. The CIA records show that they killed even moderate socialists in Arab countries to prevent the spread of communism. Thereby they enabled the rise of militant and authoritarian Islamist states, which oppressed their people with Sharia law, and took away the freedoms that women had enjoyed, including education.

Thereby, the West not only undermined their own ethical foundation, but such actions were counter-effective, and made coexistence even more difficult. That's why I ask, what if we are the bad guys?

[Stoppelmann]

Disentangling the issues of Christianity and organised religion was one of the main aspects which has directed my own philosophy quest. Since I was a teenager at school, I find that my reading life has always been central, possibly too much so at times. It as if I am trying to assemble a large jigsaw puzzle of ideas from various traditions and from the various disciplines of thought, which may be an endless quest as reality may be multidimensional.

Having come to Christianity late, to begin with, I embraced the bible as a narrative, and only later realised how my (even later) entry into nursing collided with that narrative and started questioning the exclusivist nature of the many churches. So in all, I’m a bit of a late-comer.

One book which I came across was, 'The Plural Psyche', by Anthony Samuels, which is about building up a picture from different perspectives. It is similar to the notion of relativism but his one is not based on all ideas being merely relative, but about trying to find 'truth' by exploring what is helpful from different angles. Samuels' background was Jungian psychotherapy and Jung drew upon the collective aspects of religious ideas, East and West.

I am very clearly a pluralist in my approach and can’t imagine how it can be any other way. I orientate myself on Christianity, but roughly knowing how the biblical anthology came about and knowing a lot about the history of the Catholic Church, I am aware of the contradictory baggage that I take on with that. The problem is that I would have to live in a Taoist, Buddhist, or Vedantic community to embrace any of those in the same way but would also have some baggage to contend with there.

The “truth” is that we are drawing from our experience of a reality we do not understand. Our metaphorical attempts to relate spiritual experiences, which are deeply subjective, are restricted by language. So, with coexistence in mind, we can only listen with patience and empathy to each other and try to see existence from the point of view presented to us. Sometimes, it is beyond my ability; sometimes, it is different to my own experience, but it is understandable to some degree.

In thinking about the underlying idea of coexistence and religion, the tension may be about the exoteric and esoteric. It does seem that most spiritual teachers, from Confucius, Jesus and the Buddha, had teachings which involved basic spiritual and ethical ideas of a similar nature as coexistent and parallels. However, when these are levelled down into institutional religion may where trouble enters, which is also connected to the politics of religion. This is extremely complicated because apart from Rome and Christendom there have been groups like the Templars and the Freemasons. The power structures which develop around the ideas of religion may distort the spiritual aspects of various teachings into a way which is so different from the original messages, leading to wars of ideas and literal wars too.

Institutionalised religion does seem to be the problem, as well as the need for authorities to dictate what is orthodox, accepted, or conforming and what is not. Reading my substack reading list, I came across this:

There has never been more hate in the world than there is today. It sounds like an exaggeration but when we study the term ressentiment it becomes obvious that because of our modern value system there has never been so much hate to go around. Negative as this sounds, this very same potential for hate is also the birth canal of all our progress including technologically and economically but also our social progress such as the abolishing of slavery, the freedom of all to vote and the possibility of social mobility. The modern dream of freedom and democracy casts a dark shadow; that dark shadow is ressentiment.
…
Ressentiment is the fundamental emotion of the Culture Wars and even more than that it is the fundamental emotion of modern times. It is an inevitable part of democracy — baked as it is into the idea of equality. And as much as it is an essential component of modernity's favourite governance system, it is also the greatest threat to democracy — a trend we are seeing playing itself out in an increasingly unstable spiralling out of control that we are seeing in the 21st century. It is the emotional frequency of uncontained liminality.
https://thelivingphilosophy.substack.co ... dium=email

Resentment, a related emotion, does seem to be the cause of much of our contentions. The question is, then, how to prevent resentment. We could equally ask: how do we increase trust? The answer to that is by increasing trustworthiness. Reducing resentment would then involve fostering understanding, empathy, and communication. We would have to encourage open and honest communication, making sure all parties involved feel heard and understood and addressing issues as they arise rather than letting them fester.

We would try to understand the other person's perspective and emotions and put ourselves in their shoes, recognising that people may have different experiences, beliefs, and motivations that influence their actions. We would establish and communicate clear boundaries to prevent future conflicts, making sure that expectations are clear and realistic to avoid misunderstandings.

An aspect of religion that seems lost today is the practice of forgiveness for past grievances. We all know how holding onto grudges can perpetuate resentment, and still, resentment is rampant. The Eastern traditions help us understand that forgiveness is for our own peace of mind, without condoning the other person's actions.

Perhaps, instead of dwelling on the problem between us, we could shift the focus to finding solutions, and collaborate with the other person to work towards common goals or compromises. We could engage in positive interactions and activities together to strengthen our relationships and celebrate successes and achievements to create a positive environment.

If the resentment persists, we could consider involving a neutral third party, such as a mediator or counsellor, to facilitate communication and resolution. These used to be clerical members of the church, but we have lost the trust that might have been there.

[JackDaydream]

Based on my readings, no major religion deals with coexistence, but certain individual practitioners of all religions promote coexistence. Peacefulness seems to me more a personality trait than a cultural one, although societies are clearly not all equally peaceful.

I would describe many western societies' approaches to coexistence to be chaotic. That is, the drive towards coexistence is somewhat neutralised by the drive for security.

The way I see your approach is connected to human nature and how it may interfere with ideas of coexistence. It may come down to the continuum of possibilities, especially in relation to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, ranging from the basic physical ones, the social and more creative aspects of evolutionary consciousness. Some have seen this as being about the conflict between the higher self and the lower self, but this may be too dualistic.

Nevertheless, the focus on physical needs and the concerns of ego consciousness, may represent an obstacle in the human quest, especially in relation to competitive striving, as opposed to an understanding of the transformational nature of coexistence, which may have been seen by those who sought the deepest levels of wisdom.

[JackDaydream]

To Stoppelman,
I am sorry that I am not quoting you and that is because I cannot manage to format quotes without links in your post showing up.

Your idea of resentment as opposed to forgiveness may be important in understanding of one of the problems of ideas of coexistence. It may relate to an emphasis on 'me, myself and mine' as aspects which interfere with the genuine search for understanding of others' points of view. I wonder about the evolutionary possibilities, including meditation as well as philosophy, for allowing spiritual wisdom as opposed to the fetters of religion, in going beyond the negative aspects of human nature, which may be reinforced rather than challenged in orthodox religion. It may be that many became atheists on the basis of many negative consequences of institutional religion. I grew up with Christianity, as opposed to being a late-comer. Nevertheless, I got to the point of trying to disentangle the knots which may arise in seeing religious ideas on a symbolic rather than literal basis. The symbolic may be important in seeing beyond fundamentalism, which may be the ultimate enemy of ideas of coexistence.

[JackDaydream]

Is there a spiritual tradition that fundamentally promotes coexistence, or are they all in competition with each other?

Don't some Eastern philosophy/religions come close to this? Taoism guides us in the direction of the Tao, from which only (I think) enbrained creatures can deviate, but they can choose to follow the Tao, the Path, and Taoism recommends that they (we) do. Is that anywhere close to what you're asking?

Taoism is a particularly important philosophy perspective as well as contemplative way of seeing. I find Fritjof Capra's work particularly important. This includes his 'Tao of Physics' and 'The Turning Point', which looks at thinking in science, including social science, systemically. He embraces the new physics of Einstein and quantum physics for understanding reality and the nature of interconnectedness.

[LuckyR]

Philosophies often do, but organized religions commonly don't. This makes sense since back when both were invented, organized religion's purpose was a technique to organize power, whereas philosophies were created to answer personal questions about individual and group tendancies.

[Pattern-chaser]

I guess the bottom line is that humanity is aggressive and prone to violence unless it lives by teaching that nips that proclivity in the bud.

I think this sums up the underlying truth. In the end, it's all about them and us, no matter how it might seem to be framed. It's not about religion, or nationalism, or politics, it's about our 'natural' tendency toward selfishness, and having/getting more than 'they' do. Sad but true, I think. So I tend to agree with your implication, that we need to be raised with some sort of conditioning that will moderate our less desirable tendencies...?

[Pattern-chaser]

Based on my readings, no major religion deals with coexistence, but certain individual practitioners of all religions promote coexistence. Peacefulness seems to me more a personality trait than a cultural one, although societies are clearly not all equally peaceful.

I would describe many western societies' approaches to coexistence to be chaotic. That is, the drive towards coexistence is somewhat neutralised by the drive for security.

I tend to agree, though I would put it the other way round. I think many/most religions preach an acceptable approach, which its human followers often fail to adhere to...?